District Court Sides with Trump Administration on Expedited Deportation of Somali Immigrants

In a notable win for the Trump administration, a legal challenge against a controversial deportation policy aimed at Somali immigrants was effectively quashed. This development emerged from a recent court decision in a case contesting an initiative designed to expedite the deportation process for certain Somali nationals through a select group of immigration judges.

Last Friday, efforts by immigrant advocacy organizations to halt the implementation of this “Somali Fast-Track Policy” were thwarted. The policy, which was introduced in January, faced calls for emergency relief that would have delayed its enforcement.

Advocates for the plaintiffs argue that the policy unfairly targets Somali immigrants, impacting individuals regardless of their detention status. They contend that the policy has resulted in mass scheduling of initial immigration hearings, creating unmanageable conflicts for legal representatives, thereby forcing them to prioritize some cases over others.

Conversely, the government maintains that no such policy is officially in place, dismissing the claims put forth by the opposition.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by former President Donald Trump, weighed in with a 27-page memorandum. While he acknowledged the credibility of the allegations presented in the lawsuit, he concluded that the organizations challenging the policy likely lack the legal standing required to proceed with their claims.

“The unrebutted record does suggest some form of coordinated effort directed only at non-detained Somali aliens,” the opinion reads. “But the effects of that effort are felt most directly by the aliens themselves, who are not parties before the Court, and who have their own avenues to challenge removal decisions that violate their constitutional or statutory rights. The organizations bringing this lawsuit allege different and more muted harms, which are not clearly redressable by the Court and which do not seem irreparable.”

The plaintiffs, a law firm and immigration nonprofit group, allege various violations of the U.S. Constitution – the First Amendment as well as the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment – and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the behavior of administrative agencies.

“[The policy] has accelerated in recent weeks, truncates the timeline for non-detained Somali immigrants across the country to consult with counsel and establish their claims and entitlement to relief from removal,” the lawsuit filed in late March reads. “It likewise makes the work of Plaintiffs—legal service providers seeking to assist Somali immigrants in that process—monumentally more difficult and, in many cases, nearly impossible.”

The 26-page complaint outlines the alleged policy as follows:

a. Sets master calendar hearings for non-detained Somali immigration cases in which such hearings were previously vacated and are otherwise unnecessary;

b. Sets and advances individual merits hearings for non-detained Somalis on short notice— for no later than Summer 2026, and in many cases mere weeks away—even in cases where such hearings were previously scheduled for 2027 or 2028, providing minimal time for counsel to prepare; and

c. Sets all or nearly all these master calendar hearings and individual merits hearings for non-detained Somalis before a subset of IJs who otherwise sit outside the relevant jurisdiction and in many cases have higher-than-average removal rates.

“The Somali Fast-Track Policy—which truncates the timeline for non-detained Somalis and their attorneys to effectively prepare their cases and will very likely result in the removal of Somali immigrants who are eligible for protection—irreparably harms Plaintiffs, legal service providers with a collective mission of working to ensure access to full and fair proceedings before the immigration courts for as many noncitizens as possible,” the lawsuit goes on.

In an associated 40-page motion for an emergency stay, the plaintiffs say the state of affairs has swiftly grown worse over time.

“Somali nationals’ final merits hearings—the last chance to make their case for humanitarian protection before the IJ [immigration judge]—have been rapidly advanced under the new Policy, leaving attorneys with mere days or weeks to assemble evidence and prepare arguments instead of the six months or more that is typical,” the request for emergency relief reads.

Stressing the allegedly dire and time-sensitive nature of the request, the plaintiffs insist these “newly expedited hearings” have been assigned to “a subset” of immigration judges with “higher-than-average removal rates” who are geographically removed from the immigrants in question.

The government, in turn, claims the plaintiffs are crying wolf.

“Plaintiffs claim there is a policy to expedite the removal of non-detained noncitizens of Somalia,” according to a 36-page opposition motion contesting the stay request. “However, there is no such policy. At bottom, Plaintiffs’ claims are nothing more than a collateral attack on immigration proceedings. And this Court lacks the authority to hear those claims.”

And, for now, at least, the court sided with the government.

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay at this stage of the litigation and based on the present record,” the opinion reads.

To hear Nichols tell it, the policy is still too new and effectively lacking consequences from which “rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.”

“Plaintiffs contend that the alleged policy ‘robs immigration judges of [their] discretion by putting non-detained Somali cases on an accelerated timeline writ large,’” the opinion goes on. “But Plaintiffs have not shown that individual IJs have lost the capacity to manage their docket.”

The judge goes on to say the plaintiffs may have some points about the fast-tracking issue, but cautions that “a policy that merely tells immigration judges to do their jobs faster is only reviewable” if, again, the policy ultimately “itself determines rights or obligations or alters the legal regime governing those the agency is charged to regulate.”

Nichols adds that a policy where immigration judges are allowed to set their own schedules would likely be acceptable – but notes that the issue is too embryonic for a definitive determination at this point.

“All of this is of course complicated by the amorphousness of the challenged policy, the Government’s complete denial of its existence, and the posture of this motion, which requires the Court to determine what Plaintiffs are ‘likely’ able to establish,” the judge continues. “[T]he Court’s conclusion that the alleged policy is likely not reviewable final agency action is only tentative. As this litigation proceeds, more details about the existence and contours of this policy may emerge. But in the preliminary relief posture, uncertainty cuts against Plaintiffs.”